Curran v. Connecticut Gas Products, Inc.

Connecticut Superior Court

Curran v. Connecticut Gas Products, Inc.

9 Conn. Super. Ct. 147, 9 Conn. Supp. 147, 1941 Conn. Super. LEXIS 28

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedFebruary 17, 1941

DocketFile 58500

StatusPublished

This text of 9 Conn. Super. Ct. 147 (Curran v. Connecticut Gas Products, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Curran v. Connecticut Gas Products, Inc., 9 Conn. Super. Ct. 147, 9 Conn. Supp. 147, 1941 Conn. Super. LEXIS 28 (Colo. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

*148 SIMPSON, J.

The plaintiff alleges two causes of action in his amended complaint, viz.: (1) One for failure to main' tain and keep in repair a certain dam, bulkheads, gates .and other appurtenant fixtures on the southerly end of Hanover Pond, and (2) that said dam, etc., was maintained in such condition that it was an “absolute” nuisance, and alleges in substance that, by reason thereof, on September 20, 1938, water burst through said dam and caused damage to plaintiffs’ real property and personal property stored thereon.

It seems clear to the court that there is no misjoinder of causes of action. That the damage to both the realty and personal property arose out of the same transaction seems apparent from Craft Refrigerating Machine Co. vs. Quinnipiac Brewing Co., 63 Conn. 551, 561.

Part I of the demurrer must therefore be overruled.

In part II of the demurrer (which is to the entire -amended complaint) the ground of demurrer is that no recovery can be had for private nuisance except damages resulting by reason of ownership of an interest in real property. Whether that proposition applies to this situation as alleged in the com' plaint, it is not necessary for the court now to decide. There is nothing in the complaint which causes it to appear that plaintiff may not recover for the damage occasioned by the negligent failure to keep and maintain the dam in a reasonably safe condition. In view of this situation, and the demurrer being to the entire complaint, it will have to be overruled.

Demurrer overruled on both grounds.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*148 SIMPSON, J.

The plaintiff alleges two causes of action in his amended complaint, viz.: (1) One for failure to main' tain and keep in repair a certain dam, bulkheads, gates .and other appurtenant fixtures on the southerly end of Hanover Pond, and (2) that said dam, etc., was maintained in such condition that it was an “absolute” nuisance, and alleges in substance that, by reason thereof, on September 20, 1938, water burst through said dam and caused damage to plaintiffs’ real property and personal property stored thereon.

It seems clear to the court that there is no misjoinder of causes of action. That the damage to both the realty and personal property arose out of the same transaction seems apparent from Craft Refrigerating Machine Co. vs. Quinnipiac Brewing Co., 63 Conn. 551, 561.

Part I of the demurrer must therefore be overruled.

In part II of the demurrer (which is to the entire -amended complaint) the ground of demurrer is that no recovery can be had for private nuisance except damages resulting by reason of ownership of an interest in real property. Whether that proposition applies to this situation as alleged in the com' plaint, it is not necessary for the court now to decide. There is nothing in the complaint which causes it to appear that plaintiff may not recover for the damage occasioned by the negligent failure to keep and maintain the dam in a reasonably safe condition. In view of this situation, and the demurrer being to the entire complaint, it will have to be overruled.

Demurrer overruled on both grounds.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 Conn. Super. Ct. 147, 9 Conn. Supp. 147, 1941 Conn. Super. LEXIS 28, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curran-v-connecticut-gas-products-inc-connsuperct-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack